Obama Prepares Executive Order For Indefinite Detention

From Zerohedge:

First president Obama becomes Bush in all but name with respect to his predecessor's economic policies, and now he follows by espousing Bush's interpretation of "civil rights" as well. According to Pro Publica, the White House is preparing an Executive Order for indefinite detention. And while the premise behind a comparable draft has been circulating around for 18 months, the uptake was seen as problematic. The "humanitarian" premise behind the order is that it will "provide for the periodic reviews of evidence against dozens of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay... and allow for the possibility that detainees from countries like Yemen might be released if circumstances change." That's the theory. The "practice" is that the Order will, as the name implies, afford the administration the option of "indefinite detention as a long-term Obama administration policy and makes clear that the White House alone will manage a review process for those it chooses to hold without charge or trial." In other words all those, and we assume that the Order is not merely targeting those involved in September 11, and is wider in its scope, who are perceived by the administration as "high value detainees" will be denied due process, and will be held in captivity essentially indefinitely with no legal recourse, for as long as the "review process" so deems fit. As for the "theory" aspect, Politico summarizes just how much of a bold lie Obama's promise two years ago to close Guantanamo has become: "Nearly two years after Obama's pledge to close the prison at Guantanamo, more inmates there are formally facing the prospect of lifelong detention and fewer are facing charges than the day Obama was elected." In other words, Obama has one upped Dubya not only when it comes to Republican economic policy, but has in fact surpassed his abrogation of basic human rights. And seeing how in the aftermath of the Assange arrest (speaking of which, Julian better run following this announcement), it is only a matter of time before that whole 'Internet free speech' premise is perceived to be a form of treason, by the likes of Biden, Palin and Lieberman, potentially punishable if not by death, then certainly indefinite, lifelong detention.



Read more...




--------------------That's not "change we can believe in."

Obama to award Bush the Presidential Medal of Freedom

Well looky here....

Obama to award George H.W. Bush the Presidential Medal of Freedom



President Obama dropped a bipartisan bombshell today, announcing he will award the Presidential Medal of Freedom next year to ex-President George H.W. Bush.

The magnanimous gesture of bestowing the nation’s highest civilian honor to the 41st U.S. President came a day after ex-President George W. Bush gave a respectful nod to Obama at the groundbreaking of his library in Dallas.

Read more.


--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."

Obama taps food-industry exec for top ag-research post

From Grist:

Obama taps food-industry exec for top ag-research post

Here are a couple of exerpts from the above article...

-------


Earlier this month, Congress approved Obama's nomination of Catherine Woteki, the USDA's undersecretary for research, education, and economics. The appointment drew little attention in the press, including the sustainable-food blogosphere. That's surprising, because Woteki comes to her new position after a five-year stint as global director of scientific affairs for Mars, Inc., the multinational junk-food giant.

Somewhere in the East Wing, Michelle Obama must be fuming. The first lady has labored hard to fight the rising tide of diet-related maladies among children -- and her husband has now handed the nation's agricultural research agenda to someone who recently owed her living to robust sales of stuff like Milky Way, M&M's, Twix, Skittles, Wrigley's gum, and Snickers bars, all heavily marketed to kids.



--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."

The Truth About Terrorism - James Corbet

The Emperor's New Clothes

This great video sums up how many many Obama supporters are feeling. She's probably a republican plant, but that doesn't change the fact that she precisely sums up what many people are thinking.


Obama Supporter: "I'm exhausted of defending you"



Now lets listen to a reply from the silver tongue...



He tells her (with a straight face) that she embodies all that is good in America, and people like her are the type of people "they" want to reward.

Yet the only rewards under Obama have gone directly, magnanimously, to Wall Street, just as they did under Bush. If I can find this woman's followup, I will post it below.

However, in more important news, and let's get down to some serious business, all the American Idol judges are leaving. What is the world coming to! [sarcasm]



--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."

A Puppet We Can Believe In

Once again James Corbett of CorbettReport.com hits the nail right on the head. I highly recommend you subscribe to Corbett's videos.





--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."

September 11, nine years on

God forbid we might question what we have been told.

What is wrong with asking questions anyway?





focus on 0:56 area





--------------------

That's not "change we can believe in."

We don't need no more trouble

A group of sound engineers traveled the world, and laid down this track using artists recorded in their home countries.

Playing For Change is a great project, and it is an example of the type of change we can truly believe in.

"State Secrets" Trump Justice Again

Sad, though not surprising.

From Mother Jones:

Obama administration wins the right to invoke "State Secrets" to shield Bush's torture/rendition crimes from judicial review.

ACLU comment:
This is a sad day not only for the torture victims whose attempt to seek justice has been extinguished, but for all Americans who care about the rule of law and our nation's reputation in the world. To date, not a single victim of the Bush administration's torture program has had his day in court. If today's decision is allowed to stand, the United States will have closed its courtroom doors to torture victims while providing complete immunity to their torturers. The torture architects and their enablers may have escaped the judgment of this court, but they will not escape the judgment of history.




--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."

End of War in Iraq?

Two separate presidents, from two separate parties, have declared combat operations in Iraq to be finished.

When George Bush stood on board USS Abraham Lincoln in 2003 in his leather jacket, and told us "mission accomplished", it was one of the most bizarre moments in the war in Iraq, because clearly the "mission" was far from over.

Now we have President Obama telling us (deja vu anyone?) that combat operations in Iraq are complete, HOWEVER we are leaving in place 50,000 combat troops, along with 100k to 200k private combat mercinaries.

Who believes this stuff? Do you believe it? Does anyone smell something fishy, or is it just me? Is anyone connecting the dots out there?? Hello?

Here's a great video on the subject Matt Gonzales is fantastic, start at the 5:00 mark.




--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."

Obama's "Targeted Killings"

Here's an excellent 4-minute video on Obama's USA-citizen assassination program and the lawsuit to stop it.



With thanks to Glenn Greenwald who notes:

As always with this topic, it's worthwhile to recap the worldview of many Democrats (including Barack Obama) on such matters:

It was an extreme outrage of the highest order -- a shredding of the Constitution -- when George Bush imprisoned or even just eavesdropped on American citizens without any due process. But it's perfectly acceptable -- even noble -- for Barack Obama to kill them without any due process.

--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."

Obama enables the SEC to become exempt from Freedom of Information requests

President Obama signs financial regulation law, that exempts the SEC from Freedom of Information requests.

This from a president who ran on a platform of transparency in government.

From Wall Street Journal:
SEC Gets FOIA Foil in Financial Law

JULY 31, 2010
By KARA SCANNELL

WASHINGTON—A provision in the new financial-regulation law that limits public access to documents collected by the Securities and Exchange Commission is stoking a debate over the proper level of disclosure.

The SEC says the provision, which applies to information it gathers from brokers and investment advisers, will help it get cooperation from the industry and aid examiners in pursuing wrongdoers. Some outside lawyers say that if the restriction is applied too widely it could make it harder for the public to keep tabs on an agency that has flubbed big cases such as Bernard Madoff's multibillion-dollar fraud.

The financial-overhaul bill, shown being signed into law by President Obama on July 21, includes a provision limiting public access to SEC records that some say runs counter to the administration's policy of more government transparency. The SEC says it is needed to carry out investigations

The law, signed by President Obama on July 21, affects Freedom of Information Act requests, in which people can seek disclosure of documents held by the government. The SEC can refuse to supply documents that it gathers from brokers and others for purposes such as "surveillance, risk assessments, or other regulatory and oversight activities," the law says.

"It's very broad. You could read that to apply to virtually anything the SEC is doing with respect to its regulatory responsibilities of financial institutions or banks that are covered by the bill," said Henry Asbill, a lawyer at Jones Day who previously represented Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban in a FOIA lawsuit against the SEC. That litigation is continuing.

Read More from the article...




--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."

Breaking a Promise on Surveillance

The New York Times reminds President Obama that his recent surveillance power-grab breaks campaign promises.

From NYT:

It is just a technical matter, the Obama administration says: We just need to make a slight change in a law to make clear that we have the right to see the names of anyone’s e-mail correspondents and their Web browsing history without the messy complication of asking a judge for permission.

It is far more than a technical change. The administration’s request, reported Thursday in The Washington Post, is an unnecessary and disappointing step backward toward more intrusive surveillance from a president who promised something very different during the 2008 campaign.

In a 1993 update to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Congress said that Internet service providers have to turn over to the F.B.I., on request, “electronic communication transactional records.” The government says this includes the e-mail records of their subscribers, specifically the addresses to which e-mail messages were sent, and the times and dates. (The content of the messages can remain private.) It may also include Web browsing records. To get this information, the F.B.I. simply has to ask for it in the form of a national security letter, which is an administrative request that does not require a judge’s signature.

But there was an inconsistency in the writing of the 1993 law. One section said that Internet providers had to turn over this information, but the next section, which specified what the F.B.I. could request, left out electronic communication records. In 2008, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion saying this discrepancy meant the F.B.I. could no longer ask for the information. Many Internet providers stopped turning it over. Now the Obama administration has asked Congress to make clear that the F.B.I. can ask for it.

These national security letters are the same vehicles that the Bush administration used after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to demand that libraries turn over the names of books that people had checked out. The F.B.I. used these letters hundreds of thousands of times to demand records of phone calls and other communications, and the Pentagon used them to get records from banks and consumer credit agencies. Internal investigations of both agencies found widespread misuse of the power, and little oversight into how it was wielded.

President Obama campaigned for office on an explicit promise to rein in these abuses. “There is no reason we cannot fight terrorism while maintaining our civil liberties,” his campaign wrote in a 2008 position paper. “As president, Barack Obama would revisit the Patriot Act to ensure that there is real and robust oversight of tools like National Security Letters, sneak-and-peek searches, and the use of the material witness provision.”

Where is the “robust oversight” that voters were promised? Earlier this year, the administration successfully pushed for crucial provisions of the Patriot Act to be renewed for another year without changing a word. Voters had every right to expect the president would roll back authority that had been clearly abused, like national security letters. But instead of implementing reasonable civil liberties protections, like taking requests for e-mail surveillance before a judge, the administration is proposing changes to the law that would allow huge numbers of new electronic communications to be examined with no judicial oversight.

Democrats in Congress can remind Mr. Obama of his campaign promises by refusing this request.

Read the article...

--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."

“Extreme and Unlawful” Bush-Era Policies Becoming the “New Normal” Under Obama

The ACLU produces an 18-month review of the Obama administration policies.

Quoting from the ALCU:

Indeed, on a range of issues including accountability for torture, detention of terrorism suspects, and use of lethal force against civilians, there is a very real danger that the Obama administration will enshrine permanently within the law policies and practices that were widely considered extreme and unlawful during the Bush administration. There is a real danger, in other words, that the Obama administration will preside over the creation of a "new normal."

"Establishing a New Normal" is available online at: www.aclu.org/national-security/establishing-new-normal

--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."

Obama's Surveillance Power Grab

The Obama administration wants to "clarify" FBI power to get online records without warrants -- and vastly expand it.

From: American Prospect

July 29, 2010

They're calling it a tweak -- a "technical clarification" -- but make no mistake: The Obama administration and the FBI's demand that Congress approve a huge expansion of their authority to obtain the sensitive Internet records of American citizens without a judge's approval is a brazen attack on civil liberties.

At issue is the scope of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's power to obtain information from "electronic communications service providers" using national security letters (NLS), which compel private companies to allow government access to communication records without a court order. The administration wants to add four words -- "electronic communication transactional records" -- to Section 2709 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which spells out the types of communications data that can be obtained with an NSL. Yet those four little words would make a huge difference, potentially allowing investigators to draw detailed road maps of the online activity of citizens not even suspected of any connection to terrorism.

In their original form, NSLs were extremely narrow tools designed to allow federal investigators to obtain very basic telephone records (name, address, length of service, calls placed and received) that could be linked by "specific and articulable facts" to persons suspected of being terrorists or foreign spies. In 1993, Congress amended the statute to clarify that NSLs could be issued to electronic information service providers as well as traditional phone companies. But wary of the potential for misuse of what the House Judiciary Committee called this "extraordinary device" in a world of rapidly changing technology, Congress placed tight limits on the types of records that could be obtained, making clear that "new applications" of NSLs would be "disfavored."

The administration is presenting this change as a mere clarification meant to resolve legal ambiguity -- as though Congress had simply misplaced a semicolon. Yet the Bush-era Office of Legal Counsel already rejected that argument in a 2008 opinion, concluding that the FBI had for years misread the "straightforward" language of the statute. And clarity is certainly needed, as it is hard to know just what falls under "categories of information parallel to subscriber information and toll billing records." The standard reference for lawyers in this sphere, David Kris' National Security Investigations and Prosecutions, simply notes that the scope of NSLs as applied to online activity is unclear. Even the Justice Department seems uncertain. In a 2001 response to congressional inquiries about the effect of the newly enacted PATRIOT Act, the Department Of Justice told Congress that "reasonable minds may differ" as to where the line should be drawn between addressing information equivalent to toll billing records and "content" requiring a search warrant.

Congress would be wise to specify in greater detail just what are the online equivalents of "toll billing records." But a blanket power to demand "transactional information" without a court order would plainly expose a vast range of far more detailed and sensitive information than those old toll records ever provided.

Consider that the definition of "electronic communications service providers" doesn't just include ISPs and phone companies like Verizon or Comcast. It covers a huge range of online services, from search engines and Webmail hosts like Google, to social-networking and dating sites like Facebook and Match.com to news and activism sites like RedState and Daily Kos to online vendors like Amazon and Ebay, and possibly even cafes like Starbucks that provide WiFi access to customers. And "transactional records" potentially covers a far broader range of data than logs of e-mail addresses or websites visited, arguably extending to highly granular records of the data packets sent and received by individual users.

As the Electronic Frontier Foundation has argued, such broad authority would not only raise enormous privacy concerns but have profound implications for First Amendment speech and association interests. Consider, for instance, the implications of a request for logs revealing every visitor to a political site such as Indymedia. The constitutionally protected right to anonymous speech would be gutted for all but the most technically savvy users if chat-forum participants and blog authors could be identified at the discretion of the FBI, without the involvement of a judge.

The right of "expressive association," which a unanimous Supreme Court similarly found to enjoy constitutional protection, would be equally imperiled. Though, the Court previously held that the government could not force politically controversial groups like the NAACP to reveal their membership rosters without judicial process. But as legal scholar Katherine Strandburg has argued, data-mining technology now holds out the temptation that just such patterns of "expressive association" can be revealed by sophisticated analysis of communications patterns and social-network ties -- and perhaps even patterns of physical movement, as could be inferred from records of location-sensitive mobile devices. And when the goal is to detect the patterns of previously unidentified terrorists, such analysis requires vacuuming up the records of huge numbers of innocent persons, more or less by definition.

Moreover, the distinction between "content" and merely "transactional" information is not nearly as sharp as might be supposed. Certain communications protocols, for instance, transmit each keystroke a user makes in real time as a separate data "packet." Given the known regularities of the English language, standard keyboards, and human hands, it is theoretically possible to infer the content of a communication from a sufficiently precise record of packet transmission timing. While such an attack would probably be infeasible given current technologies and record-keeping practices, the legal change proposed by the FBI would not be limited to present technologies or practices.

More practically, consider records of keyword-sensitive targeted advertising delivered to users of Webmail services like Gmail, which could indirectly hint at the contents of the e-mail that triggered a specific ad. Or again, consider downloaded movies. Under the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988, records of a customer's video-rental history are private and protected by law. But even if subscriber viewing histories using services like iTunes or Netflix were considered out of bounds, that history could be reconstructed from transaction logs showing the precise size of a user download. The examples are hypothetical -- what matters is the more general point: An abstract distinction between metadata and "content" gives us no way of predicting the extent of highly intimate information that might be extracted as technology changes and the analytic tools of investigators become more sophisticated.

We increasingly live online. We flirt, shop, read, speak out, and organize in a virtual space where nearly every action leaves a digital trace -- and where those breadcrumb bits often track us through the physical world as well. If the Obama administration gets its way, an agency that has already proved itself utterly unable to respect the limits of its authority will have discretion to map our digital lives in potentially astonishing detail, with no judge looking over their shoulders. That the administration and the FBI would seek such power under the guise of a "technical clarification" is proof enough that they cannot be trusted with it.






Read more...

--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."

White House proposal would ease FBI access to records of Internet activity

From Washington Post

Thursday, July 29, 2010

The Obama administration is seeking to make it easier for the FBI to compel companies to turn over records of an individual's Internet activity without a court order if agents deem the information relevant to a terrorism or intelligence investigation.

...

Stewart A. Baker, a former senior Bush administration Homeland Security official, said the proposed change would broaden the bureau's authority. "It'll be faster and easier to get the data," said Baker, who practices national security and surveillance law. "And for some Internet providers, it'll mean giving a lot more information to the FBI in response to an NSL."

...

To critics, the move is another example of an administration retreating from campaign pledges to enhance civil liberties in relation to national security. The proposal is "incredibly bold, given the amount of electronic data the government is already getting," said Michelle Richardson, American Civil Liberties Union legislative counsel.


Read more...

--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."

Military Spying and Torture Continues Under Obama: CIFA’s Nine (Corrupt) Lives

From Dissident Voice:


Despite promises to the contrary, the Obama administration has consolidated, even expanded privacy- and civil liberties killing programs launched by the Bush government.

From warrantless spying and driftnet surveillance to the indefinite detention and torture of foreign suspects held in U.S. gulags, and from the murderous drone wars in Pakistan to threats to assassinate American citizens merely on the suspicion they might be terrorists, 18 months into Obama’s new “change” order, facts on the ground paint a grim picture indeed.

As egregious as these central facts are in demolishing the veracity of the President’s long-forgotten campaign pledges, when it comes to enlisting the services of defense and security corporations for waging America’s bogus “War On Terror 2.0.1,” the current regime delivers!

Read more...



--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."

Obama: Life Imprisonment Without Trial

Excellent article from The New American. Happy 4th of July everybody :(

==================

Obama: Life Imprisonment Without Trial
by Thomas R. Eddlem

President Obama's Guantanamo Review Task Force has “unanimously” concluded that 48 detainees at Guantanamo should be detained indefinitely — in essence, a life sentence — without trial, including lifetime detention for some detainees who, the commission concluded, hadn't committed any crimes that “constitute a chargeable offense in either a federal court or military commission.” The Washington Post revealed May 28 that the Task Force decided to repatriate the majority of the 240 detainees they investigated, while other detainees should be tried in criminal court or by “military commissions” the Obama administration would reconstitute.

Most Guantanamo detainees have already languished in prison for eight years without trial, and the commission — consisting of officials from the intelligence, military, Defense, Homeland Security, State and Justice departments — concluded the following of the 48 detainees who would remain in prison without trial indefinitely:

Generally these detainees cannot be prosecuted because either there is presently insufficient admissible evidence to establish the detainee's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in either a federal court or military commission, or the detainee's conduct does not constitute a chargeable offense in either a federal court or military commission.

In other words, the Obama administration officials think the detainees might have committed a crime but can't be sure, or they are sure the detainees didn't commit a crime and want to keep them in prison for life anyway.

The untrammeled power of government to throw people into prison without a trial by jury was a key grievance the Founding Fathers cited in their reason for separating from Britain, charging the British with “depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of trial by jury” in the Declaration of Independence. Therefore, the Founding Fathers sought to require both due process of law for all those arrested in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

No person shall be ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

And they also guaranteed an unqualified right to trial by jury in the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Of course, the 48 designated for life imprisonment without trial is only the beginning. The U.S. government holds hundreds of other detainees at other prisons around the world, such as those at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan (which has more detainees than Guantanamo). The “unanimous” but blatantly unconstitutional precedent set by this ruling could mean that these other detainees — or anyone else the Obama administration detains — could also receive life imprisonment without trial under the Obama policy.

The Task Force concluded that 126 detainees should be approved for repatriation to their home countries (of which 44 have already been released), 44 should be prosecuted (prosecution of six in federal court and six more in “military tribunals” has already been announced), and 48 are designated for indefinite detention without trial. An additional 30 Yemeni detainees were deemed to be eligible for repatriation to their home country when the Yemeni government stabilizes.

The trial by “military commissions” would also be a blatant violation of the Sixth Amendment's requirement of trial by jury of peers as well as its requirement that the “district shall have been previously ascertained by law.” In the case of the military tribunals, the district will be created eight years after the offense and specifically to get convictions in alleged crimes that occurred years earlier.

The Task Force reviewed the cases of the 240 who remained in the Cuban military base in early 2009 when President Obama ordered the review. Of the 779 people who were detained at Guantanamo since 2002, not one has yet been given a criminal trial under either the ordinary criminal (civilian) process or the Uniform Code of Military Justice reserved to members of armed forces. Two-thirds of the detainees (530 of the 779) were released or repatriated to their home countries. Several detainees were convicted under unconstitutional “military commissions,” first by the Bush administration and later by Congress' Military Commissions Act of 2006, but the Supreme Court ruled the military commissions unconstitutional in successive cases, ending in the famous Boumediene case in 2008.

The Obama administration's justification for holding the 48 detainees for life without a trial is the 2001 Authorization of the Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress. In essence, the Obama administration claims that a mere law passed by Congress overcomes the explicit and unequivocal wording of the Constitution's Bill of Rights. The Task Force rationalized the decision for indefinite detention this way:

As the Supreme Court has held, inherent within the authorization of the AUMF to “use all necessary and appropriate force” is the power to detain any individuals who fall within the scope of the statute. As the Supreme Court observed, “by universal agreement and practice,” the power to wage war necessarily includes the authority to capture and detain combatants in order to prevent them from “returning to the field of battle and taking up arms once again.”

This determination by the Guantanamo Review Task Force represents the final victory of the policies of George W. Bush in the Obama administration, and is in many respects constitutionally worse than the Bush policy. The Bush administration talked about holding people indefinitely, but there was always the hope that trials or release would eventually be obtained. The Guantanamo Review Task Force makes the Bush policy explicit, bipartisan, and permanent. It contitutes the first case in American history where the U.S. government has explicitly concluded that it has the power to lock up anyone for life without ever holding a trial of any kind.

There is no greater mark of tyranny than a government that can throw a person into prison for life at the whim of an executive without any sort of impartial review. But the Obama administration makes this arbitrary power worse when its Guantanamo Review Task Force admits that some of those it is throwing into prison for life have not committed a crime. That's precisely what the review said when it admitted that some detainees being selected for lifetime detention without a trial had not committed anything that would “constitute a chargeable offense in either a federal court or military commission.”

Many should now be asking: If this decision is allowed to stand, can we still call America the “land of the free”? And if freedom-loving Americans don't work to return their government to the Constitution, are we still the “home of the brave”?


--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."

Obama’s USDA Less Transparent Than Bush’s

From Environmental Working Group

The Environmental Working Group has worked hard to track the billions lavished on the wealthiest and largest farm operations in the country, in the hope that releasing the information would spur public demand for a sane and sensible agriculture policy. By following the money, we’ve exposed the grossly inequitable federal farm spending that enables the biggest subsidy recipients to maximize their haul of taxpayer dollars while skirting tepid regulations.

Read more...

--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."

'Obama Deceives the Public'

Daniel Ellsberg says 'Obama Deceives the Public'.

From Spiegel Online:


Daniel Ellsberg, legendary leaker of the "Pentagon Papers" in 1971, still has a bone to pick with the White House. In an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE, the 79-year-old peace activist accuses President Obama of betraying his election promises -- in Iraq, in Afghanistan and on civil liberties.




SPIEGEL ONLINE: Mr. Ellsberg, you're a hero and an icon of the left. But we hear you're not too happy with President Obama anymore.

Daniel Ellsberg: I voted for him and I will probably vote for him again, as opposed to the Republicans. But I believe his administration in some key aspects is nothing other than the third term of the Bush administration.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: How so?

Ellsberg: I think Obama is continuing the worst of the Bush administration in terms of civil liberties, violations of the constitution and the wars in the Middle East.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: For example?

Ellsberg: Take Obama's explicit pledge in his State of the Union speech to remove "all" United States troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. That's a total lie. I believe that's totally false. I believe he knows that's totally false. It won't be done. I expect that the US will have, indefinitely, a residual force of at least 30,000 US troops in Iraq.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: What about Afghanistan? Isn't that a justifiable war?

Ellsberg: I think that there's an inexcusable escalation in both countries. Thousands of US officials know that bases and large numbers of troops will remain in Iraq and that troop levels and bases in Afghanistan will rise far above what Obama is now projecting. But Obama counts on them to keep their silence as he deceives the public on these devastating, costly, reckless ventures.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: You doubt not only Obama's missions abroad but also his politics back home in the US. Why exactly are you accusing the president of violating civil liberties?

Ellsberg: For instance, the Obama administration is criminalizing and prosecuting whistleblowers to punish them for uncovering scandals within the federal government …

Read more...

ABOUT DANIEL ELLSBERG



Daniel Ellsberg, 79, a former United States Marine and military analyst, triggered a national crisis in 1971 when he released the "Pentagon Papers" to the New York Times and other newspapers. The classified Pentagon documents -- 7,000 pages commissioned by then-Defense Secretary Robert McNamara -- revealed that the US government knew the Vietnam War was ultimately unwinnable. The White House fought the publication all the way up to the Supreme Court and, when that proved unsuccessful, proceeded to smear and persecute Ellsberg. Today, Ellsberg continues to tour the world as a lecturer, writer and activist.

--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."

Obama's War on Whistleblowers Intensifies.

From Salon.com


War on Whistleblowers Intensifies.

What makes this trend of escalated anti-whistleblower activity particularly notable is that Obama, during his career in the Senate and when running for President, feigned serious support for whistleblowers. Today, Bush DOJ whistleblower Jesselyn Raddack -- while pointing out that "Bush harassed whistleblowers mercilessly, but Obama is prosecuting them and sending them to jail" -- notes that Obama previously made commitments like this one (click on image to enlarge):



--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."

Obama’s National Security Strategy (NSS): A New Direction or Continuity

Via: Dissident Voice

By Stephen Lendman / June 9th, 2010 (emphasis mine)

Periodically, US administrations prepare NNS documents for Congress, outlining their major national security concerns and plans for addressing.

On May 27, the White House Office of the Press Secretary announced Obama’s saying it’s to “Advanc(e) Our Interests: Actions in Support of the President’s National Security Strategy.” UN ambassador Susan Rice called it a “dramatic departure” from the Bush administration. The White House claims it’s “to keep the American people safe” and advance the nation’s “values and ideals.”

In fact, it’s old wine in new bottles, rebranded to appear softer. Rhetoric is one thing, policy another, revealing actions much louder than words. Under all administrations, they’re menacing, given America’s permanent war agenda, discussed by this writer on March 1 here .

It addressed permanent wars, waging them in the name of peace, what historians, Charles Beard and Gore Vidal, called “perpetual war for perpetual peace,” suppressing truths too disturbing to reveal, like creating pretexts to pursue them, always for imperial gain and benefits for war profiteers.

As a candidate, Obama campaigned against militarism, promised limited escalation and the removal of all combat troops from Iraq by August 31, 2010. In fact, permanent occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere is planned, increased military spending annually, and more conflicts for greater dominance that eventually will bankrupt the country and leave it as damaged and isolated as Israel is becoming from a policy Stratfor’s George Friedman calls r(unning) into its own fist.”

Even the world’s superpower is vulnerable, maneuvering perhaps for goals too lofty, running out of ways to pay for them, and perhaps enough allies willing to go along.

In his writings and a recent interview, Chalmers Johnson “worr(ies) about the future of the United States; whether, in fact, we are tending in the same path as the former Soviet Union (as well as other former empires), with domestic, ideological rigidity in our economic institutions, imperial overstretch (that) we have to be everywhere at all times. (We’re richer than Russia), so it will take longer. But we’re overextended,” and are headed for the same fate. “I think we will stagger along under a facade of constitutional government (until one day) we’re overcome by bankruptcy.” Obama is pursuing the same reckless path as his predecessors, more so, in fact, with greater spending and new fronts.

What then to make of his NSS? On May 27, New York Times writers, David Sanger and Peter Baker, headlined, “New US Strategy Focuses on Managing Threats,” saying:

Obama’s first plan describes a time when America “will have to learn to live within its limits — a world in which two wars cannot be sustained for much longer and (other) rising powers inevitably begin to erode some elements of (US) influence around the globe.”

Seeking help to advance global hegemony, Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, stressed “patience and partners (to achieve) results more slowly,” claiming “In a world like this, American leadership isn’t needed less. It is needed more. And the simple fact is that no problem can be solved without us,” or perhaps less of them would exist without US policies creating them — the fractious, threatening world The Times writers mention, reflecting more continuity than divergence from Bush.

On May 27 in Foreign Policy, Peter Feaver, wondered the same thing in his article headlined, “Obama’s National Security Strategy: real change or just ‘Bush Lite,’ ” saying:

Despite trying to frame it as a new direction, in fact, he’s continuing “a slightly watered down but basically plausible remake” of his predecessor’s. Beyond the hyperbole and talking points, “the conclusion is pretty obvious.”

Instead of Bush’s “strengthen(ed) alliances to defeat global terrorism,” Obama stresses prevention of “attacks against us and our friends, (and) agendas for cooperative action with the other main centers of global power.” Further, “comprehensive engagement” with our traditional allies, as well as “more effective partnerships with other key centers of influence.” In other words, greater efforts to co-opt more nations to expand America’s global dominance.

Bush also addressed reforming international institutions. So does Obama, saying:

we need to be clear-eyed about the strengths and shortcomings of international institutions that were developed to deal with the challenges of an earlier time and the shortage of political will that has at times stymied the enforcement of international norms. Yet it would be destructive to both American national security and global security if the United States used the emergence of new challenges and the shortcoming of the international system as a reason to walk away from it.

Instead, he stresses focusing on strengthening it to “serve common interests,” mostly benefitting America.

Bush and Obama both identified WMD proliferation as a major threat, “particularly the danger posed by the pursuit of nuclear weapons by violent extremists and their proliferation to additional states.” They both recognized the importance of military and police power to combat it, and according to Obama’s NSS:

“The United States must reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend our nation and our interests.” In other words, like Bush, preemptive war will be pursued to combat perceived threats.

Also, both presidents stressed US leadership, Bush’s 2006 NSS saying:

“The challenges America faces are great, yet we have enormous power and influence to address those challenges.” The “time has long since passed” that Washington can lead by example alone. “America cannot know peace, security, and prosperity by retreating from the world. America must lead by deed as well as example.”

As true for Obama stressing “global leadership (dependent on) strong and responsible American leadership” directing it to ensure other nations follow.

Overall, the language and tone differ, but policy remains the same — permanent wars in a threatening world, America in the lead waging them along with willing partners offering support; that is, until they cut their losses and opt out.

Also in Foreign Policy on May 27, Will Inboden headlined, “Obama’s National Security Strategy leaves an empty feeling,” saying:

Continuity with Bush is evident in the context of a less than compelling grand strategy “that connects an analysis of opportunities and threats with resources, policies and goals.”

It’s “too heavy on process and light on strategy,” much of it devoted to “engagement, cooperation and partnerships” as well as a “world we seek (for) a just and sustainable international order,” not what’s needed without Washington rampaging to control it.

The proof, of course, is in the implementation, and after nearly one-and-a-half years in office, Obama is clearly pursuing imperial wars and homeland repression, like the Bush administration, by a leader who promised change.

Another way came last September when Central Command head, General David Petraeus, issued a secret directive to send covert US Special Operations forces to friendly and hostile states in the Middle East, Central Asia, the Horn of Africa, and by implication anywhere in the world by his counterparts – to “penetrate, disrupt, defeat or destroy” terror threats and “prepare the environment” for future planned military attacks.

On June 4, Washington Post writers, Karen DeYoung and Greg Jaffe, headlined, “US ‘Secret War’ Expands Globally as Special Operations Forces Take a Larger Role,” saying:

The Obama administration “has significantly expanded a largely secret US war against al-Qaeda and other radical groups” with Special Ops forces “in 75 countries, compared with about 60 at the beginning of last year.”

More is planned along with intensified use of CIA drone attacks, and according to one unnamed “senior military official,” Obama has allowed “things that the previous administration did not,” including the largest ever FY 2011 Special Ops budget of $6.3 billion plus another $3.5 billion contingency funding in 2010.

His NSS aside, Obama plans more war on the world than George Bush, putting a lie to his campaign promise to withdraw Iraq troops by August 2010 and begin exiting Afghanistan by July 2011. Earlier as an Illinois State Senator, he delivered an October 2002 anti-war speech, saying:

….we ought not….travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

As president, he’s waging war on the world, including Americans globally, suspected of terrorism. Explaining it, former National Intelligence Director, Dennis Blair, told Congress last February that Obama authorized “direct actions against terrorists,” including assassinating uncharged Americans innocent of any crime, in clear violation of the law.

Law Professor, Jonathan Turley, cites the “Annex to the Hague Convention Number IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land” with a provision stating: “In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden… to kill or wound treacherous individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army….”

Though vague, the Pentagon interprets it as “prohibiting assassination, proscription, or outlawry of an enemy, or putting a price upon an enemy’s head, as well as offering a reward for an enemy ‘dead or alive.’” In other words, combatants can be targeted on the battlefield, not civilians, precisely what other international law states, Turley citing the rights of US citizens, affirmed both in law and:

“in cases like Reid v. Covert, 354 US 1 (1957), American citizens have the same protections regardless of whether they are within or outside of the country.”

The decision referred to two American women who killed their husbands on US military bases abroad, given the same Fifth Amendment and other constitutional protections they’d get at home. Turley asked: “If a president can kill US citizens abroad, why not within the United States?” What’s to stop him, and what do policy statements mean if he can do as he pleases by executive order, other edicts, or verbal commands to subordinates.

Russia’s RIA Novosti said Obama’s NSS “is not a radical departure” from his predecessor. The document “is intended mainly for foreign consumption,” and to a lesser degree for Congress. However, it’s “just a piece of paper,” and will anyone “take him at his word.” Why, when all politicians lie, and Obama matches the best of them.

While the document denies America targets Islam, policy clearly shows otherwise abroad and at home, Muslims remaining the enemy of choice, regularly vilified to hype fear to enlist support for imperial wars and homeland repression, the same as under Bush.

Added focus also stresses homegrown threats, John Brennan, Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, saying:

We’ve seen an increasing number of individuals here in the United States become captivated by extremist activities or causes…. The president’s national security strategy explicitly recognizes the threat (from) radicalized… individuals, including US citizens, armed with their US passport, travel(ing) to terrorist safe havens… then return(ing) to America, their deadly plans disrupted by coordinated intelligence and law enforcement.

What’s going on, in fact, is America’s war on Islam to incite fear, targeting innocent Muslims as convenient scapegoats to gain popular support for police state policies — Obama doing Bush one better with indefinite detentions of uncharged persons “who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States.” Despots couldn’t say it better.

His NSS implies no let-up in the counterterrorism fight, Brennan referring to a campaign “harness(ing) every tool of American power, military and civilian, kinetic and diplomatic,” including war. “We will take the fight to Al Qaeda (read Muslims) and its extremist affiliates (read Taliban, US citizens, or anyone challenging America) wherever they plot and train — in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and beyond.”

Nor will we “respond after the fact. Instead the United States will disrupt, dismantle and ensure a lasting defeat of Al Qaeda and violent extremist affiliates” — a clear declaration of war on the world with America’s full military and homeland security might.

What critic, Andrew Bacevich, calls America’s standard response to perceived threats, “a normal condition, one to which no plausible alternatives seem to exist. All of this Americans (and other nations) have come to take for granted: it’s who we are and what we do,” and why we’re increasingly hated. Governing as roguishly as Bush, Obama will end up as much despised.




--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."

Obama Continues to Bully Iran

Never Taking Yes for an Answer

From: Dissident Voice

No policy of the Obama administration better illustrates its fundamental mendacity than its policy of bullying Iran. In this the administration is Bush/Cheney Regime, Part II. The Post-9/11 Geopolitical Power Grab, Continued. The March of Folly: the sequel.

“Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon…is unacceptable.” That assumes that Iran is trying to get one. This rootless assumption was relentlessly promoted by the disinformation specialists nested in the Office of the Vice President throughout the Bush administration. The same ones who insisted that al-Qaeda had an intimate relationship with Saddam Hussein, that Iraq was procuring uranium from Niger, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, etc. (Outrageous lies Obama has never wanted to investigate, urging us all to just “move on” and thus forgive the prevaricators and ignore all the blood on their hands.)

Read more...

--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."

Obama says diplomacy, military go hand in hand

Obama says diplomacy, military go hand in hand

Yeah, haven't we heard that before? As a candidate, he was talking all about the importance of diplomacy. Now, its all about the importance of military. We are fighting two pre-emptive and unnecessary wars, both STILL being funded through "emergency" spending measures. These are wars that have stretched on for nine years in one case and seven years in the other.

From the above article (emphasis mine):
"...Obama said the U.S. will fight to protect "those universal rights that formed the creed of our founding" and will lead by example by staying true to the rule of law and the Constitution, "even when it's hard, even when we're being attacked, even when we're in the midst of war."

The two current wars are in complete violation of "those universal rights that formed the creed of our founding". Closing Guantanamo, but using Baghram Air Base instead, is in complete violation of those universal rights too.

When you say one thing, but you are doing the exact opposite, you really have lost all credibility.

And if the article doesn't frighten the life out of you then you are probably not paying attention.







--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."

Obama wins the right to detain people with no habeas review

Astounding, though depressing, hypocricy from Obama

From salon.com:

Obama wins the right to detain people with no habeas review


Few issues highlight Barack Obama's extreme hypocrisy the way that Bagram does. As everyone knows, one of George Bush’s most extreme policies was abducting people from all over the world -- far away from any battlefield -- and then detaining them at Guantanamo with no legal rights of any kind, not even the most minimal right to a habeas review in a federal court. Back in the day, this was called "Bush's legal black hole." In 2006, Congress codified that policy by enacting the Military Commissions Act, but in 2008, the Supreme Court, in Boumediene v. Bush, ruled that provision unconstitutional, holding that the Constitution grants habeas corpus rights even to foreign nationals held at Guantanamo. Since then, detainees have won 35 out of 48 habeas hearings brought pursuant to Boumediene, on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to justify their detention.

Immediately following Boumediene, the Bush administration argued that the decision was inapplicable to detainees at Bagram -- including even those detained outside of Afghanistan but then flown to Afghanistan to be imprisoned. Amazingly, the Bush DOJ -- in a lawsuit brought by Bagram detainees seeking habeas review of their detention -- contended that if they abduct someone and ship them to Guantanamo, then that person (under Boumediene) has the right to a habeas hearing, but if they instead ship them to Bagram, then the detainee has no rights of any kind. In other words, the detainee's Constitutional rights depends on where the Government decides to drop them off to be encaged. One of the first acts undertaken by the Obama DOJ that actually shocked civil libertarians was when, last February, as The New York Times put it, Obama lawyers "told a federal judge that military detainees in Afghanistan have no legal right to challenge their imprisonment there, embracing a key argument of former President Bush’s legal team."

...

...a President attempting to deny Constitutional rights to detainees can simply transfer them to a "war zone" instead of to Guantanamo and then claim that courts cannot interfere in the detention. Barack Obama quickly adopted that tactic for rendering the rights in Boumediene moot -- the same rights which, less than two years ago, he was praising the Supreme Court for safeguarding and lambasting the Bush administration for denying.


Read more...



--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."

US Begins Massive Military Build Up Around Iran, Sending Up To 4 New Carrier Groups In Region

Sounds like the standard playbook again from United States



From Zerohedge:

US Begins Massive Military Build Up Around Iran, Sending Up To 4 New Carrier Groups In Region

As if uncontrollable economic contagion was not enough for the administration, Obama is now willing to add geopolitical risk to the current extremely precarious economic and financial situation.

Read more...




--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."

POLL: 31% SAY AMERICA NEEDS 3RD PARTY

NBC/Wall Street Journal poll: 31% of Americans believe political system is seriously broken and U.S. needs third party.


POLL: 31% SAY AMERICA NEEDS 3RD PARTY


From NBC's Mark Murray
Here's the first set of numbers we're releasing from our new NBC/WSJ poll, which comes out in full beginning at 6:30 pm ET:

According to the poll, more than 80% see problems with America's two-party system -- with 31% believing it's seriously broken and that America needs a third party, and with another 52% saying that it has real problems but that it can still work with some improvements.

Only 15% of Americans believe the two-party system works fairly well.

The poll was taken May 6-10, and these numbers have a margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points.

Goldman’s Chief Executive Visited the White House at Least Four Times

From the excellent blog Cryptogon:

Goldman’s Chief Executive Visited the White House at Least Four Times

While Goldman Sachs’ lawyers negotiated with the Securities and Exchange Commission over potentially explosive civil fraud charges, Goldman’s chief executive visited the White House at least four times.

Continue reading...

I have to say I would be absolutely flabbergasted if this were not the case. Goldman Sachs was a top contributor to the Obama Campaign, along with a number of other banks. Why does it come as no surprise at all? So pathetically sad. The banks own Washington, and all talk of "financial reform" is just a whitewash.

--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."

Obama Campaign Top Contributors

Open Secrets publishes a list of Barac Obama's largest presidential campaign contributors.

This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization's members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors - like EMILY's List and Club for Growth - make for particularly big bundlers.

University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881
General Electric $499,130
US Government $494,820
Latham & Watkins $493,835



--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."

U.S. Troops Killing Innocent Afghans

From: allgov.com (emphasis mine)

McChrystal Admits U.S. Troops are Killing Innocent Afghans at Checkpoints

Monday, April 05, 2010
America’s top commander in Afghanistan, Army General Stanley McChrystal, ... told his audience: “We have shot an amazing number of people, but to my knowledge, none has ever proven to be a threat.”

McChrystal added that during the nine-plus months he has been in charge, in none of the cases in which a civilian was hurt “has it turned out that the vehicle had a suicide bomb or weapons in it and, in many cases, had families in it."

read more...

--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."

Obama gives key agriculture post to Monsanto man

from Green Change:

Obama gives key agriculture post to Monsanto man

Gary Ruskin | Green Change | 03.27.2010

Today, President Obama announced that he will recess appoint Islam A. Siddiqui to the position of Chief Agricultural Negotiator, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

Siddiqui is a pesticide lobbyist and Vice President for Science and Regulatory Affairs at CropLife America, an agribusiness lobbying group that represents Monsanto.

Following is a letter sent by 98 organizations to U.S. Senators in opposition to Siddiqui's appointment, and a fact sheet about him.

Read more...

Ed note: Had George Bush made this appointment, the democrats would be howling. But Obama supporters don't know, or don't care, or (likely) both.

--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."

Obama Vows to Keep ‘Turning Up’ Pressure on Iran

April 2 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama said he’d “keep on turning up the pressure” on Iran to prevent the country from developing the capacity to build nuclear weapons.

“The regime has become more isolated since I came into office,” Obama said in an interview with CBS’s “Early Show.”

read more...

----------------------
That's not "change we can believe in"

Obama adopts Bush view on the powers of the presidency.

from the Wall Street Journal

Obama Channels Cheney

The Obama Administration this week released its predecessor's post-9/11 legal memoranda in the name of "transparency," producing another round of feel-good Bush criticism. Anyone interested in President Obama's actual executive-power policies, however, should look at his position on warrantless wiretapping. Dick Cheney must be smiling.

In a federal lawsuit, the Obama legal team is arguing that judges lack the authority to enforce their own rulings in classified matters of national security. The standoff concerns the Oregon chapter of the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, a Saudi Arabian charity that was shut down in 2004 on evidence that it was financing al Qaeda. Al-Haramain sued the Bush Administration in 2005, claiming it had been illegally wiretapped.

read more...

-----

update: Judge ruled Bush wiretapping was unconstitutional and illegal.

Obama Starting to Sound Like Bush

From: Mother Jones

He donned a leather bomber's jacket with an Air Force One logo on it, got up in front of a boisterous crowd of about 2,000 military personnel in a hangar at Bagram Air Base, and gave a tub-thumping, "support the troops" campaign speech. I'm talking about Barack Obama on his six-hour visit to "Afghanistan."

read more...

Obama continuation of Bush policies.

Obama ran as the "anti-Bush," promising to rectfy the harm done by his predecessor - this is why he got elected, because the public wanted change, and Obama promised it.

More than a year into his term, lets step back now and ask ourselves what has actually changed? Obama has continued virtually each and every one of Bush's major policies:

• Obama continues Bush's Iran Policy


• Obama Continues Bush Foreign Policy on Europe, Iran and Russia


• Obama Continues Bush Policy On State Secrets


• Obama education policies: a lot like Bush policies


• Obama immigration policies contain little new, embraces Bush's programs.


• Obama continues Bush’s border fence policies


• Obama continues Bush's Wiretapping of Americans policy


• Obama administration continues Bush policy on land mines


• Obama continue's Bush's terrorism policy


• Obama Continues Bush/Cheney's Persecution of Abu Zubaydah


• Obama continues Bush's policy of detainees/habeas corpus. (and here)


• Obama continues Bush policy on weapons to Georgia.


• Obama continues Bush's policy on "extraordinary rendition" (and here and here)


• Obama Continues Bush Policy of Deadly Air Strikes in Pakistan

In his article "Change we can't believe in," Mehdi Hasan makes the following points:

Obama promised a sharp break from the Bush era, yet he has stepped right into Bush's shoes.

While campaigning, Obama "repeatedly criticised the Bush administration's treatment of detainees, its rendition policy and the use of the "state secrets" privilege to prevent classified information from being discussed in court." Now that he is in office, all of these policies are unchanged.

In 2007, Obama described Bush's warrantless wiretapping programme as "unlawful and unconstitutional", but two years later the Obama justice department again followed in the footsteps of Bush and tried to have a court case dismissed on grounds of national security and protecting "state secrets".

“Obama has stepped into the shoes of President Bush," said Jon Eisenberg, a lawyer for the plaintiffs. "He continues to assert the state secrets privilege to resist holdover lawsuits from the Bush era . . . in an attempt to prevent the judiciary from adjudicating on the legality of the warrantless wiretapping programme, and addressing the larger presidential power issues that the case presents."


Health --> promised reform, but quickly backed away from "public plan" option

Climate Change --> recopgnised the problem, yet failed to persuade congress to take substantive action

Financial Reform --> multibillion-dollar bank bailout, approved by Bush, has simply been continued by Obama in the same vein. Failed to rein in bank bonuses.

Taxes --> pledged not to raise "any form" of taxes on families making less than $250,000 a year, however his tax plans have done little to advance even modest social-democratic goals. The administration's primary policy proposals make permanent a number of the [Bush] tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003. Almost all of the tax policy proposed in the Obama budget is just a continuation of the Bush tax policy

Torture/Guantanamo Bay --> praised for announcing, in his first week in office, that the world's most notorious prison camp would be closed within a year and that torture - including the Bush-approved technique of "waterboarding" - would be outlawed. Now more than a year later, there is still no confirmation that Guantanamo Bay will be closed. Force-feeding operations have continued at the camp, and are apparently administered with "such violence and brutality" that one prisoner has died.
Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, the US is increasing its capacity to imprison people by expanding facilities at bases such as Bagram, where human rights groups have documented many incidents of torture and several unexplained deaths in custody. In February the new administration told a federal judge that military detainees there have no legal right to challenge their captivity.

Also on torture --> Obama has refused to release the shocking photographs of the Bush administration's "enhanced interrogation" techniques, as well as CIA documents describing those interrogations. He has criticised Senator Patrick Leahy's proposal for a "truth commission" to investigate the Bush administration's national security policies, and backed immunity for senior Bush officials implicated in torture. In effect, he is covering up the torture he decried as a presidential candidate.

War on Terror --> This was where Obama was expected to make the biggest break with the Bush regime. Early on, he announced that he would begin winding down the war in Iraq - but only, it seems, in order to divert US troops, spies and diplomats to the war in Afghanistan and operations across the border in Pakistan. He has approved air strikes there that have killed more civilians in nine months than died in US bombings in the final year of the previous administration.

Defense --> In a staggering continuation of Bush policy, retained Bush's Secretary of Defence, Robert Gates. "Defense" was the lynch pin of many Bush policies.

Afganistan--> Obama has doubled troop levels in Afganistan, where troop levels will eclipse Iraq by mid 2010.


---------------
This is not "change we can believe in."

Obama reverses; OK's offshore drilling

In June 2008, during his presidential campaign, then-Sen. Obama told reporters in Jacksonville, Florida, “when I’m president, I intend to keep in place the moratorium here in Florida and around the country that prevents oil companies from drilling off Florida’s coasts. That’s how we can protect our coastline and still make the investments that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and bring down gas prices for good.”

His rival John McCain was proposing lifting a moratorium on off-shore drilling. Obama called this "a strategy designed to get politicians through an election."

"It's not going to provide short-term relief or medium-term relief or in fact long-term relief. It won't drop prices in this administration or in the next administration or in the administration after that,"


Well, that was BEFORE he became president. Today Obama administration is proposing to open vast expanses of water along the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the north coast of Alaska to oil and natural gas drilling, much of it for the first time

-------------
That is not "change we can believe in."

Pink slips

Saw this on Twitter...

Any pink slip to a teacher while a TARP banker takes a bonus is something Obama should be ashamed of.

---------

This is not "change we can believe in".

Recess Appointments: Despicable, Unless Your Side Does It

When George Bush was making his recess appointments, thus bypassing the Senate, Democrats cried foul and complained bitterly.

Now that Obama is in office, with the chance to change things, he continues with the exact same strategy. All of a sudden it's OK to make recess appointments. I guess it's OK if it is your side that's doing it.

Recess Appointments: Despicable, Unless Your Side Does It

This is not "change we can believe in".

Obama endorses DNA database, considers biometric national ID

Obama endorses DNA database, considers biometric national ID

from Papers, Please!

Yesterday President Obama met again with Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), the sponsors of the “immigration reform” bill we reported on yesterday, which has as its first “pillar” a mandatory biometric national worker ID card. In conjunction with his meeting with the Senate sponsors of this scheme, President Obama issued a statement which didn’t mention the national ID card specifically, but praised the overall proposal as “a promising, bipartisan framework which can and should be the basis for moving forward.”

Meanwhile, President Obama has strongly and explicitly endorsed mandatory DNA sampling of everyone arrested (not convicted, arrested — people who are presumed to be innocent) and retention of DNA records in a national database. “It’s the right thing to do… This is where the national registry becomes so important,” the President said [transcript] in an on-camera interview. We hope he reconsiders, and that his views on a national DNA database aren’t an indication of his leanings on a national biometric ID card.

Whichever way they are leaning now, the President and the Senate need to hear from the public, right away, what you think of these ideas — and that you won’t go along with unconstitutional restrictions on your rights.

-------
This is not "change we can believe in"

Dr. Dahlia Wasfi - Life in Iraq Under U.S. Occupation

How Long Will Americans Stay Apathetic To The Reality

Final destination Iran?

The pattern is exactly the same as Iraq pre-invasion build-up...

Final destination Iran?

from The Herald


Published on 14 Mar 2010

Hundreds of powerful US “bunker-buster” bombs are being shipped from California to the British island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean in preparation for a possible attack on Iran.

The Sunday Herald can reveal that the US government signed a contract in January to transport 10 ammunition containers to the island. According to a cargo manifest from the US navy, this included 387 “Blu” bombs used for blasting hardened or underground structures.

Experts say that they are being put in place for an assault on Iran’s controversial nuclear facilities. There has long been speculation that the US military is preparing for such an attack, should diplomacy fail to persuade Iran not to make nuclear weapons.

Although Diego Garcia is part of the British Indian Ocean Territory, it is used by the US as a military base under an agreement made in 1971. The agreement led to 2,000 native islanders being forcibly evicted to the Seychelles and Mauritius.

The Sunday Herald reported in 2007 that stealth bomber hangers on the island were being equipped to take bunker-buster bombs.

------------
"They are gearing up totally for the destruction of Iran"

Dan Plesch, director, Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy, University of London
------------

Although the story was not confirmed at the time, the new evidence suggests that it was accurate.

Contract details for the shipment to Diego Garcia were posted on an international tenders’ website by the US navy.

A shipping company based in Florida, Superior Maritime Services, will be paid $699,500 to carry many thousands of military items from Concord, California, to Diego Garcia.

Crucially, the cargo includes 195 smart, guided, Blu-110 bombs and 192 massive 2000lb Blu-117 bombs.

“They are gearing up totally for the destruction of Iran,” said Dan Plesch, director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at the University of London, co-author of a recent study on US preparations for an attack on Iran. “US bombers are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours,” he added.

The preparations were being made by the US military, but it would be up to President Obama to make the final decision. He may decide that it would be better for the US to act instead of Israel, Plesch argued.

“The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely,” he added. “The US ... is using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.”

According to Ian Davis, director of the new independent thinktank, Nato Watch, the shipment to Diego Garcia is a major concern. “We would urge the US to clarify its intentions for these weapons, and the Foreign Office to clarify its attitude to the use of Diego Garcia for an attack on Iran,” he said.

For Alan Mackinnon, chair of Scottish CND, the revelation was “extremely worrying”. He stated: “It is clear that the US government continues to beat the drums of war over Iran, most recently in the statements of Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.

“It is depressingly similar to the rhetoric we heard prior to the war in Iraq in 2003.”

The British Ministry of Defence has said in the past that the US government would need permission to use Diego Garcia for offensive action. It has already been used for strikes against Iraq during the 1991 and 2003 Gulf wars.

About 50 British military staff are stationed on the island, with more than 3,200 US personnel. Part of the Chagos Archipelago, it lies about 1,000 miles from the southern coasts of India and Sri Lanka, well placed for missions to Iran.

The US Department of Defence did not respond to a request for a comment.

Slaughter House Rules

Slaughter House Rules

WSJ

We're not sure American schools teach civics any more, but once upon a time they taught that under the U.S. Constitution a bill had to pass both the House and Senate to become law. Until this week, that is, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi is moving to merely "deem" that the House has passed the Senate health-care bill and then send it to President Obama to sign anyway.

Under the "reconciliation" process that began yesterday afternoon, the House is supposed to approve the Senate's Christmas Eve bill and then use "sidecar" amendments to fix the things it doesn't like. Those amendments would then go to the Senate under rules that would let Democrats pass them while avoiding the ordinary 60-vote threshold for passing major legislation. This alone is an abuse of traditional Senate process.

But Mrs. Pelosi & Co. fear they lack the votes in the House to pass an identical Senate bill, even with the promise of these reconciliation fixes. House Members hate the thought of going on record voting for the Cornhusker kickback and other special-interest bribes that were added to get this mess through the Senate, as well as the new tax on high-cost insurance plans that Big Labor hates.

So at the Speaker's command, New York Democrat Louise Slaughter, who chairs the House Rules Committee, may insert what's known as a "self-executing rule," also known as a "hereby rule." Under this amazing procedural ruse, the House would then vote only once on the reconciliation corrections, but not on the underlying Senate bill. If those reconciliation corrections pass, the self-executing rule would say that the Senate bill is presumptively approved by the House—even without a formal up-or-down vote on the actual words of the Senate bill.

Democrats would thus send the Senate bill to President Obama for his signature even as they claimed to oppose the same Senate bill. They would be declaring themselves to be for and against the Senate bill in the same vote. Even John Kerry never went that far with his Iraq war machinations. As we went to press, the precise mechanics that Democrats will use remained unclear, though yesterday Mrs. Pelosi endorsed this "deem and pass" strategy in a meeting with left-wing bloggers.

This two-votes-in-one gambit is a brazen affront to the plain language of the Constitution, which is intended to require democratic accountability. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution says that in order for a "Bill" to "become a Law," it "shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate." This is why the House and Senate typically have a conference committee to work out differences in what each body passes. While sometimes one house cedes entirely to another, the expectation is that its Members must re-vote on the exact language of the other body's bill.

As Stanford law professor Michael McConnell pointed out in these pages yesterday, "The Slaughter solution attempts to allow the House to pass the Senate bill, plus a bill amending it, with a single vote. The senators would then vote only on the amendatory bill. But this means that no single bill will have passed both houses in the same form." If Congress can now decide that the House can vote for one bill and the Senate can vote for another, and the final result can be some arbitrary hybrid, then we have abandoned one of Madison's core checks and balances.

Yes, self-executing rules have been used in the past, but as the Congressional Research Service put it in a 2006 paper, "Originally, this type of rule was used to expedite House action in disposing of Senate amendments to House-passed bills." They've also been used for amendments such as to a 1998 bill that "would have permitted the CIA to offer employees an early-out retirement program"—but never before to elide a vote on the entire fundamental legislation.

We have entered a political wonderland, where the rules are whatever Democrats say they are. Mrs. Pelosi and the White House are resorting to these abuses because their bill is so unpopular that a majority even of their own party doesn't want to vote for it. Fence-sitting Members are being threatened with primary challengers, a withdrawal of union support and of course ostracism. Michigan's Bart Stupak is being pounded nightly by MSNBC for the high crime of refusing to vote for a bill that he believes will subsidize insurance for abortions.

Democrats are, literally, consuming their own majority for the sake of imposing new taxes, regulations and entitlements that the public has roundly rejected but that they believe will be the crowning achievement of the welfare state. They are also leaving behind a procedural bloody trail that will fuel public fury and make such a vast change of law seem illegitimate to millions of Americans.

The concoction has become so toxic that even Mrs. Pelosi isn't bothering to defend the merits anymore, saying instead last week that "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." Or rather, "deeming" to have passed it.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A22


-------
This is not "change we can believe in"

Obama Supports DNA Sampling Upon Arrest

Obama Supports DNA Sampling Upon Arrest
from Wired

By David Kravets March 10, 2010 | 6:40 pm |


Josh Gerstein over at Politico sent Threat Level his piece underscoring once again President Barack Obama is not the civil-liberties knight in shining armor many were expecting.

Gerstein posts a televised interview of Obama and John Walsh of America’s Most Wanted. The nation’s chief executive extols the virtues of mandatory DNA testing of Americans upon arrest, even absent charges or a conviction. Obama said, “It’s the right thing to do” to “tighten the grip around folks” who commit crime.

When it comes to civil liberties, the Obama administration has come under fire for often mirroring his predecessor’s practices surrounding state secrets, the Patriot Act and domestic spying. There’s also Gitmo, Jay Bybee and John Yoo.

Now there’s DNA sampling. Obama told Walsh he supported the federal government, as well as the 18 states that have varying laws requiring compulsory DNA sampling of individuals upon an arrest for crimes ranging from misdemeanors to felonies. The data is lodged in state and federal databases, and has fostered as many as 200 arrests nationwide, Walsh said.

The American Civil Liberties Union claims DNA sampling is different from mandatory, upon-arrest fingerprinting that has been standard practice in the United States for decades.

A fingerprint, the group says, reveals nothing more than a person’s identity. But much can be learned from a DNA sample, which codes a person’s family ties, some health risks, and, according to some, can predict a propensity for violence.

The ACLU is suing California to block its voter-approved measure requiring saliva sampling of people picked up on felony charges. Authorities in the Golden State are allowed to conduct so-called “familial searching” — when a genetic sample does not directly match another, authorities start investigating people with closely matched DNA in hopes of finding leads to the perpetrator.

Do you wonder whether DNA sampling is legal?

The courts have already upheld DNA sampling of convicted felons, based on the theory that the convicted have fewer privacy rights. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that when conducting intrusions of the body during an investigation, the police need so-called “exigent circumstances” or a warrant. That alcohol evaporates in the blood stream is the exigent circumstance to draw blood from a suspected drunk driver without a warrant.

Illustration: hibiotech/Flickr



Read More http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/03/obama-supports-dna-sampling-upon-arrest#ixzz0iD1A9ofa